|
Quote:
I don't see how Amtrak is a serious form of transportation between LA and SF. Just use a plane, car, or Greyhound. The train is only fun if you have time to blow and want a nice cruise. I still haven't taken Amtrak along the coast yet except south to San Diego. |
Quote:
Sound familiar? Quote:
|
Quote:
They were an actually viable way to get between the two metros, as long as you didn't mind having your back hurt for a day or so at your destination. I don't know how these businesses have fared during the, ya know, disease and all, but, assuming we get out of that, they were an at least decent option. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
My bus did once run out of gas, though. The driver literally said, "dammit", and then we all had to get off in the Valley somewhere. |
Quote:
The driver was compromised, either health, or lack of training, nerves, mechanical error, or something. I just don't know, because he did not respond to my commands or questions. Basically the driver could not turn the bus so he kept on hitting the curve...on a bridge. It was freaking everybody out and I had to do something, so I told everybody to get off the bus and I was lecturing him until the cops showed up. He passed the DUI test but they didn't let him drive the bus again so we had another bus pick us up. |
^ That story reminds me of the end of this movie Force Majeure.
|
Quote:
There were old women and kids screaming because we were on a bridge in downtown LA, and I'm not gonna just let that happen. Looking at a map, it was probably the East Caesar Chaves Avenue Bridge which is not far from Union Station. It could be one of the other bridges, but it was one of those neat looking ones. The worst part is I also had to talk to 911 because they hung up on the people before me. So then I also had to be the guy to talk to the cops but they didn't let me know the deal after his DUI check. This driver, was trying to do a 3 point turn on a bridge but he never finished it. We had to walk over to the nearest intersection with the most names (I figured the cops would be able to find it). |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
AND . . . . . CP4 drone footage from John at The Four Foot
This is the shortest and therefore the furthest along construction package, so you really get a sense of what the finished corridor will look like: Quote:
|
Quote:
If we wanted HSR from Seattle to Portland, for example, we would only have to involve Washington and Oregon. It's not so simple on the East Coast. |
Quote:
It's a ridiculous situation, but one that is a real problem should Chicago>Indy>Louisville>Nashville>Atlanta or Detroit>Dayton>Cincinnati>Lexington>Nashville gain traction. |
Quote:
|
Agreed. I don't know which ones to combine, though.
|
Quote:
DC is another matter altogether. The District of Columbia's creation is rooted in Article I, section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution, "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings" You would have to change the US Constitution with an amendment that requires 2/3rds of the other states to agree. That is not going to happen. The purpose of this clause is to make Federal laws the only laws that apply in the Seat of Government - such that no State can dictate laws with the District. As soon as you make DC apart of Maryland again, Maryland laws would also apply over the entire District. Can you imagine the Governor of Maryland telling the President of the United States that he has to wear a covid mask indoor and outdoors 24 hours every day? :shrug: Having the District independent of Maryland avoids that situation altogether. :tup: Our forefathers were not completely dumb as some of you might suggest. |
Quote:
It is possible to remove all but the areas required for actual federal government (e.g. White House, Capitol, etc.) from DC, and admit the now non-DC area as a new state, and admissions of states do not require ratification of the states. |
Delete.
|
Infrastructure problems as they pertain to intercity rail could be reduced if the rail systems themselves were designed in-house, either by state DOTs or by a dedicated federal agency. So much of the high cost for intercity rail and transit in the United States comes from exploitative for-profit actors like Parsons-Brinkerhoff. Yes, PB's $3,000/day consultants are brought in for high-cost bridge & tunnel highway projects, but not to the same extent as they are for rail. It appears that CASHSR is attempting to do some activities in-house, but the costs could be brought down if we had a national agency that acted as consultants to the state DOT's. There could also be procurement at a national scale. As big as CAHSR is, it doesn't have the economy of scale that the big freight railroads have or the experienced purchasing staffs.
|
Quote:
The current calls to make DC a state are all motivated by the Democrat party and its belief that they'd pick up two senators for the next 100 years. Be careful what you wish for - as hard as it might be to imagine today, an era of DC being a Republican lock might be just 15 years away. I am regularly startled when I think back to how different the electoral map was just 20 years ago, let alone the 1980s. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Article 1 Section 8 defines the "Powers of Congress". The clause establishing the District of Columbia falls under the "Powers of Congress". So obviously, Congress could change its powers when it decides to do so. When was the last time you saw Congress surrender a Constitutional power? Like what happen to the section of the District south of the Potomac, the land was surrendered back to Virginia, therefore most likely the section of the District north of the Potomac would probably be surrendered back to Maryland. At least Maryland would have a very strong claim for it. The Constitution also states what is required to add a new State. Article 4 - The States ; Section 3 - New States "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress. The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State." Can the northern section of the District be made into a new State or would it return back to Maryland? Maryland gave up that territory to make the District, not to make a new State 200 plus years later. It would make an interesting constitutional case in the Supreme Court. Which bring up the possibilities about breaking states up into 2, 3, or more states. How many States do you know desire giving up tax revenues? Anything is possible, and given the right circumstances anything can be probable. But I do not ever see the circumstances where States will be willing to give up tax revenues and surrendering territory to another State. |
Quote:
I'm not an expert on Puerto Rico but it has 2X the population of Hawaii and is half the distance from the mainland, which is enough for me to take any wish of theirs for statehood seriously, but we hardly ever hear from them. |
Quote:
This conversation has absolutely nothing to do with California HSR. |
Delete.
|
Delete.
|
Quote:
DC residents don't even have a nickname. It's overwhelmingly a bunch of transplants. Almost nobody has "deep roots" in DC. It seems like a place where the D party could reward people from elsewhere in the country with a seat in the U.S. Senate. Like when Hillary Clinton migrated to New York, but every time. Agreed that the varying state and district borders complicate long-distance rail projects. If the Ohio bullet train had happened back in the 1980s, we would be living in a different country from an intercity rail perspective. Sure, a few other mid-sized states had multiple cities within them (Missouri and Tennessee and Texas, for example) but most don't, and so we would have seen new interstate compacts or federal legislation to ease the construction of new passenger rail lines. I'm not sure that CAHSR will work to that same end since the state is so different from the east and Midwest that I'm not sure that it will work as a proof-of-concept in the same way that Ohio would have. I should start an Ohio bullet train thread at some point. It would have been a really, really big deal. It seemed to have had some push from the Japanese, who were heavily invested in the state in the 1970s and 1980s, since the push disappeared with Japan's economic might in the early 1990s. https://hosting.photobucket.com/imag...080&fit=bounds |
Getting back to CHSR, the more project update videos I watch, the more I am absolutely convinced we messed up royally by not following the I-5 corridor. While a lot of us (myself included) often think of the Central Valley as being desolate, it's actually quite developed from an infrastructure perspective. This means there are TONS of tiny roads that probably carry maybe a couple dozen cars a day that have to be bridged, tunneled, or otherwise rerouted. Add in the myriad of crossings in the towns and cities the HSR will be going through, and it's clear to see why this project is taking forever.
The Central Valley residents would still have been served by an I-5 route. Someone in Fresno or Visalia or Bakersfield could drive/take a bus/get dropped off at the station closest to where they live-- no more than an hour for most-- and have direct, quick service to SF and LA. We'd shave off at least 40 miles, which would be a significant savings, and we'd have so much less work to do for infrastructure relocation, as the 5 largely already dealt with those issues. Connecting Bakersfield to Fresno...who the hell cares about or wants that? You get off the train in Frenso for whatever reason, and how are you going to get around? There aren't transit systems in place like there are in LA and SF. Making the eastern side of the CV be the focus of CHSR was a massive error, and one that might prove fatal for this project. I'm not convinced we're going to see full completion of the LA to SF line in the next 40 years. By 2060 maybe we'll all have flying cars by then lol. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Even if they had built along I-5, they still wouldn't have the money with the current allocation to dig the Pacheco Pass tunnel or Grapevine tunnel or Alameda tunnel (or whatever route variation) if they had kept costs a little lower in the Central Valley. Plus, if they were working on the I-5 route right now, we'd have people complaining that they aren't properly serving the central valley cities. |
^ Fast forward 20 years and I could see a scenario where constructing the Grapvine approach as well, providing a second basin entry/exit bypassing Palmdale, is at least discussed as a possibilty to add system flexibilty and performance. Though I've always heard there are major seismic concerns for the Grapevine route and that contributed to it not being chosen.
|
Wow, sorry I didn't mean to start a massive political debate...
The idea of combining several NE states into one is utterly impossible politically, obviously, but I have wondered if it would be possible to have them act more like a single state organizationally when it comes to transit. The Port Authority seems like an attempt to do this, but it doesn't function as well as it could. Having the commissioners appointed by the NY/NJ governors was a mistake in hindsight, it makes the Port Authority into nothing more than an arm of the governors (leads to a lot of corruption too). Bringing this back to HSR, it would be an interesting idea to create a multi-state organization in the South or Midwest, with its leaders directly elected by the citizens of each state, dedicated to building HSR lines. That would still be hard to do, but at least it would be feasible Quote:
|
Quote:
A "base" Grapevine tunnel would be in excess of 30 miles long, so much longer than what is currently planned for Burbank>Palmdale. It's also possible that the much greater length of operation at medium speeds would make the total Los Angeles to Bakersfield time almost the same despite the shorter distance. What is currently planned is a 40-mile stretch between LA Union and Palmdale operating at roughly 120-150mph. The trains would then achieve top speed for approximately 40 miles before slowing somewhat for the Tehachapi Pass. By contrast, Grapevine would mean 120-150mph for 80 miles between LA Union and the north side of the mountain range at Grapevine. Creating a second entrance into Los Angeles via Grapevine wouldn't make much sense if the stretch between Burbank and LA Union remains the currently-planned 3 tracks. They'd exaggerate the problem that is already going to exist with Metrorail trains slotting into the HSR approach. If they create a totally separate southern terminus with no connection to Union Station that means there would have to be a totally separate staging/turnaround facility. The lines in the SF valley all point toward Burbank, so getting from Slymar south to, say, LAX would require rebuilding the 405 with a pair of HSR tracks in the center. |
Quote:
Think about tractor trailers speeds in mountainous areas, they slow down because of a lack of power going uphill, but they also slow down downhill because of the limitation of brakes. HSR trains have plenty of power to go faster uphill, but have the same limitation of the brakes going downhill as trucks. :( Whereas the Palmdale routing adds miles to the HSR corridor than the Grapevine, it has far less miles of steeper grades than the Grapevine route. Hence why there is practically even elapse times between both routes, and why sometimes the longer route can be faster than the shorter route. |
Quote:
Maybe there is a way to build 2-3 long tunnels over Grapevine instead of a single monster base tunnel. It would take years of study to determine the best strategy. I suspect that CASHR went with Palmdale because they were more confident in the geologic conditions in that area, in addition to the Las Vegas connection. |
Quote:
There are many places on our planet where trains go their fastest within tunnels. |
Quote:
Y'all like maps? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ect_Status.png source |
^Who's taking bets on whether we can board a high speed train from LA in 2033? I'll take the over, please.
|
I think there's reason to be skeptical, but i also think there is equal reason to be optimistic. There is a very real possibility that the tunnelling from Palmdale to Sylmar will actually proceed sooner and be accomplished faster than many have assumed. In the history of tunneling it's not uncommon for completion dates to be moved significantly forward due to cooperative geology and a TBM performing flawlessly. Personally, I'm confident these target dates will be very close.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
2704.04. (a) It is the intent of the Legislature by enacting this chapter and of the people of California by approving the bond measure pursuant to this chapter to initiate the construction of a high-speed train system that connects the San Francisco Transbay Terminal to Los Angeles Union Station and Anaheim, and links the state's major population centers, including Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego consistent with the authority's certified environmental impact reports of November 2005 and July 9, 2008. (b) (1) Net proceeds received from the sale of nine billion dollars ($9,000,000,000) principal amount of bonds authorized pursuant to this chapter, upon appropriation by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act, shall be used for (A) planning and engineering for the high-speed train system and (B) capital costs, as described in subdivision (c). (2) As adopted by the authority in May 2007, Phase 1 of the high-speed train project is the corridor of the high-speed train system between San Francisco Transbay Terminal and Los Angeles Union Station and Anaheim. (3) Upon a finding by the authority that expenditure of bond proceeds for capital costs in corridors other than the corridor described in paragraph (2) would advance the construction of the system, would be consistent with the criteria described in subdivision (f) of Section 2704.08, and would not have an adverse impact on the construction of Phase 1 of the high-speed train project, the authority may request funding for capital costs, and the Legislature may appropriate funds described in paragraph (1) in the annual Budget Act, to be expended for any of the following high-speed train corridors: (A) Sacramento to Stockton to Fresno. (B) San Francisco Transbay Terminal to San Jose to Fresno. (C) Oakland to San Jose. (D) Fresno to Bakersfield to Palmdale to Los Angeles Union Station. (E) Los Angeles Union Station to Riverside to San Diego. (F) Los Angeles Union Station to Anaheim to Irvine. (G) Merced to Stockton to Oakland and San Francisco via the Altamont Corridor. (4) Nothing in this section shall prejudice the authority's determination and selection of the alignment from the Central Valley to the San Francisco Bay Area and its certification of the environmental impact report. To me, completion of the line between Bakersfield and Sacramento would be relatively inexpensive and a big political win. I think the workaround would be to have ACE or the Capitol Corridor build the line between Sacramento and Merced. California keeps posting gigantic surpluses. A fraction of any of these annual surpluses could fund the extension to Sacramento, which would involve zero tunnels or other unpredictable elements. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
They'd be better off just carving their own path across the Central Valley (to be fair, they have done this in certain sections). |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Huh :shrug: Over promising and under delivering seems too common in California nowadays. |
Quote:
Wow, very insightful. |
Quote:
I keep reading here that they will start and finish testing the IOS by 2023 when these gaps in the corridor have not started construction and the trainsets have not been ordered as of November 2021. How is that even possible? Take that for some insightful (deer in headlights) news! You are welcome. |
I think California HSR is the best thing that has ever happened to rail in the US!
It is the poster child of how NOT to build HSR so the rest of the US can learn from it's stellar ineptitudes and not make the same mistakes. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 2:37 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Prev